VIPUL M.PANCHOLI,J. - (1.) These appeals are filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against an oral judgment dated 08.03.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7054 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition.
(2.) Letters Patent Appeal No.250 of 2016 has been filed by the original petitioners - Mansa Agriculture Produce Market Committee and another, whereas Letters Patent Appeal No.959 of 2017 is filed by the original respondent Nos. 4 to 13. As the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, both these appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
(3.) Brief facts leading to filing of the present appeals are as under: 3.1. That the land bearing Survey No.1330, admeasuring 1 acre 35 gunthas situated at village Lodra, Taluka: Vijapur, which was originally belonging to the respondent No.3, was acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. The said land was thereafter allotted to Vijapur Agriculture Produce Market Committee. The said Committee thereafter asked for the permission to use the said land for Non-Agricultural purpose, which was granted for the purpose of Sub Market Yard by the concerned authority by an order dated 05.01.1969. Thereafter, the said committee asked for revised NA permission which was granted by an order dated 05.04.1971 for the purpose of construction of Lodra Sub Market Yard. 3.2. It is the say of the original petitioners that Project Officer - cum - Taluka Development Officer initiated proceedings for breach of condition of NA permission as it was found that use of the land for Lodra Sub Market Yard continued only up to 1981-82. It is alleged that shop Nos. 13 to 19 total admeasuring 416.20 sq. mtrs. were not used for market yard but used for residential and other commercial purpose. The said officer therefore imposed fine of Rs.6650/- by an order dated 19.11.1994. The said order was challenged by Vijapur Agriculture Produce Market Committee by filing Revision Application No.6/1995. The Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals) rejected the said Revision Application. However, while rejecting the application it was observed that for breach of condition of NA permission, the concerned authority should take appropriate action for cancellation of NA permission after issuing notice to the concerned parties. 3.3. Vijapur Agriculture Produce Market Committee filed Regular Civil Suit No.123 of 1996 before the Court of learned Civil Judge (J.D.) challenging the said order passed by the respondent authorities. In the meantime, on bifurcation of Talukas, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Mansa i.e. the petitioner No.1, was established for market area of Mansa by Notification dated 29.09.2001. Lodra Sub Market Yard came to be transferred to Mansa APMC. Thus, the aforesaid suit was transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar where it was renumbered as Regular Civil Suit No.52 of 2005. The concerned Civil Court dismissed the said suit by an order dated 09.02.2007. The petitioners therefore filed Regular Civil Appeal No.19 of 2007 against the said order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Gandhinagar. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Court by an order dated 04.02.2008. 3.4. The respondent No.2 thereafter initiated the proceedings for breach of condition of NA permission and for cancellation of the same as directed by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue Department (Appeals). The respondent No.2 passed an order dated 24.10.2008 by which the NA permission granted in favour of the petitioner APMC came to be cancelled for breach of condition of NA permission and the Chairman and Secretary of petitioner APMC were directed to remove the construction from the land in question. 3.5. The original respondent Nos. 4 to 13 - appellants of Letters Patent Appeal No.959 2017 therefore preferred Revision Application under Section 211 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code on various grounds and mainly contended that the order passed by the respondent No.2 was in violation of principle of natural justice and no notices were issued to them before passing the said order. The respondent No.1, by an order dated 10.03.2011, dismissed the said Revision Application. 3.6. The petitioner APMC filed the captioned petition before this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent no.2 as well as the respondent no.1. It is reflected from the record that the original respondent Nos. 4 to 13 filed Special Civil Application No.7310 of 2011. However, the said petition came to be withdrawn when their application for joining party in the captioned petition was allowed and thereby the respondent Nos. 4 to 13 were joined as party respondent in the captioned petition. 3.7. Learned Single Judge by an impugned order dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner APMC. Thus, the original petitioners as well as original respondent Nos. 4 to 13 have filed the present appeals. ;